Trump’s Upcoming Sentencing Sparks Debate on Justice System and Electoral Process

Let’s dig into the coming sentencing of former President Donald Trump, who was found guilty of beating Hillary Clinton and turning the political establishment on its collective head.

The vengeance they seek goes beyond President Trump—they want to nail anyone in his circle.

Coming up on Thursday, July 11, Judge Juan Merchan will sentence President Trump.

The sentence may depend on what probation officials say or on what they write in their pre-sentence report.

What these officials recommend—that they have the power to recommend anything is a crime—will determine whether Trump goes to prison or remains on probation and out of jail.

Their recommendation will determine what happens next, including whether the election—the election of Donald Trump as our next president—will potentially happen at all. What these officials say will determine who has the final say in our fine republic.

What these officials write, based on a virtual interview done a week ago, will be part of the official record—and of course, it will be paraded through the media meat grinder. At the same time, Trump is not allowed to utter a word because of the draconian gag order.

This is how our system of justice works; you cannot say the law is color-blind because it is not.

It is not enough for these officials to say they have a job to do and that their work takes precedence over our right to elect the next president.

Are we to believe these officials are without bias? How could we possibly think that based on the wildly biased performance we have already witnessed inside Merchan’s courtroom, plus his family’s close ties to Democrats and their campaigns?

Are we to believe they are so reasonable as to be champions of reason, choosing logic over the lunacy of what is Trump Derangement Syndrome? 

Are we so naive as to suspend disbelief when everything we know about Merchan makes it impossible to believe this man is fair or impartial?

By what right does a bureaucrat—an apparatchik with a badge—have the right to cast aside 78 years of Trump’s successful life for the sake of editorializing about 34 felony counts?

Is it right for a probation officer to reduce the totality of President Trump’s life to a wrongful conviction?

Is it just to dismiss truth and do away with objective reporting, ignoring Trump’s success in business and victory in the arena so Democrats can assassinate the character of the president?

The purpose of this particular report, in my admittedly jaded opinion, is to support injustice.

The effect of this report is to support the sentence Merchan imposes—to give it a big fat rubber stamp of leftist approval.

Thus, this is how the wheels of justice—more like the gears of a giant machine.
 
The reality of this machine, or rather the brutality of this state-run behemoth, is unjust.

The probation officials are accessories after the fact. 
They give Merchan the cover he needs, the cover he wants, to remove President Trump from polite society and cast a shadow over him. They hope it is long and dark enough to keep him from getting 270 electoral votes.

The officials are more like faithless electors: electors who do not vote for the candidate for whom they had pledged to vote.

That these officials do not want anyone to vote for Donald Trump, that they will do anything to deny him the freedom to take office, and that they will not stop until he loses his freedom is clear and more criminal than anything he has been charged with.

But unlike the faithless elector who changes his vote after an election, these officials have contempt for elections and are trying to weigh in before a single ballot is cast.

No doubt Democrats like to vote early and often, but July is too early for Democrats to go to the polls. 
 
The franchise is sacred.

The secret ballot is sacrosanct.

If we allow the unelected to engage in voter suppression, if we allow them to politick inside the courthouse, we will neither have the right to vote nor a cause to vote for.
 
Democrats may think elections are superfluous, that politics is too important to let the people decide which politicians shall have the right to represent the people.

If, however, the people may not vote for Donald Trump, if they may vote for anyone else so long as the candidate is a Democrat, then yes, Democrats think elections are great.

Such is the definition of choice under Democrats. This is what they like to call free and fair elections—but of course, they are neither under this Stalinist pale.

Such is the way of pro-choice Democrats who say, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

Do not, however, expect Democrats to say, “If you like Donald Trump, you can vote for him.”

Democrats despise Trump far more than they care about you, this country, your kids, or the future of freedom.

Democrats deplore us—they have said so too many times to remember and used too many terms to repeat.

But just because Democrats hate us does not mean they think they can defeat us—at least not fairly and not with an even playing field.

Absent corruption and ballot stuffing, Democrats are too risk-averse to respect the will of the people—they must stop the man who can crush them at the polls.

Better to call President Trump a danger to democracy than let the people vote for the candidate of their choice.
 
Better to call him a criminal than to say his enemies want to criminalize politics.

Better to call for his imprisonment than to say our criminal justice system is selective and punitive in the extreme.

The report will say as much as I predict—it will be ugly and sordid and predictable.
 
Any such report is fiction, of course—bad fiction.

In this respect, and this respect only, the report is consistent and true to the spirit and letter of Judge Merchan’s brand of jurisprudence.

In other words, whatever is bad for President Trump is just, and nothing President Trump does is good.

Anything else is irrelevant.

Life, liberty, the Bill of Rights, due process of law, the Constitution—all immaterial.

Winning is the only justice Democrats support.

Injustice is the only philosophy Merchan defends from what I have seen—and my observations are supported by Jonathon Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and a host of other high-profile attorneys who are neither Trump supporters nor Republicans—but at least they are honest.

Nothing the probation officials say is defensible. They will smear the life work of a man who actually knows how to work.

For them not to recommend a fine or imprisonment, for them not to recommend anything, would require them to choose decency over vengeance, and I am not convinced they are capable of that in New York City.

For Merchan not to cite the report would require him to be someone else.

For us to do nothing is worse.

Silence is not consent.

We do not consent to the fast undoing of our rights.

We are not silent.

We will not rest until justice is done, and today, we are a long way from getting there.

BY STEVE GRUBER

Originally posted on Steve Gruber.com ➜

#####

CHECK OUT GRUBER'S WEBSITE ➜
JOIN GRUBER ON FACEBOOK ➜
FOLLOW GRUBER ON X.COM (AKA Twitter)➜
CONNECT WITH GRUBER ON TRUTH SOCIAL ➜
JOIN GRUBER ON GETTR ➜
RUMBLE WITH GRUBER ON RUMBLE ➜
LINK UP WITH GRUBER ON LINKEDIN ➜